Monday, July 25, 2016

We all expected Trump to get a bounce from the convention, although I don’t believe many of us expected it to be quite this big…

Donald Trump comes out of his convention ahead of Hillary Clinton in the race for the White House, topping her 44% to 39% in a four-way matchup including Gary Johnson (9%) and Jill Stein (3%) and by three points in a two-way head-to-head, 48% to 45%. That latter finding represents a 6-point convention bounce for Trump, which are traditionally measured in two-way matchups.

There hasn’t been a significant post-convention bounce in CNN’s polling since 2000. That year Al Gore and George W. Bush both boosted their numbers by an identical 8 points post-convention before ultimately battling all the way to the Supreme Court.

The new findings mark Trump’s best showing in a CNN/ORC Poll against Clinton since September 2015. Trump’s new edge rests largely on increased support among independents, 43% of whom said that Trump’s convention in Cleveland left them more likely to back him, while 41% were dissuaded. Pre-convention, independents split 34% Clinton to 31% Trump, with sizable numbers behind Johnson (22%) and Stein (10%). Now, 46% say they back Trump, 28% Clinton, 15% Johnson and 4% Stein.

The actual poll results are here in PDF format. Trump is already up between three and five points and Hillary hasn't even taken the stage yet. It's only going to get worse for Clinton and the Democrats from here.

The Trumpslide has already begun. Now it's picking up speed.

UPDATE: Nate Silver is now calculating a 57.5 percent chance of a Trump victory, up from 10.8 percent one month ago.

223 Comments:

I don't see what the Coalition of the Fringes has for sale that is all that appealing to anyone not in on the cut of the loot. The CotF has to be a carefully stage managed political theatre where each week one of the groups gets "mainstream" media hype over its Nuremberg rally and flogging of the conservatives ritual (conservatives love this flogging)

I work with a lot of Manhattan lawyers. They are typical Manhattan liberals who should be Hillary's natural constituency, but the venom they have for Hillary is quite shocking. In this group of lawyers is an African black immigrant who confided to me that not only is he voting for Trump, but his entire circle of family and friends is also voting for Trump.

Based on this experience, I am quite certain Vox is right and Trump will win in a walk.

My WAG is that the CotF requires at its head a transcendent cultish figurehead and they got that with Clintoon and Obama, but if they don't get such a figurehead the grannies that moderate the CotF have to work extraordinarily hard to keep the crime syndicate running without doing a "Reservoir Dogs" ending upon itself.

The group that's been holding him back the most has been women, because Hillary supposedly is one, and the left has been telling them Trump wants to lock them back in a 1950s kitchen. Putting Melania and Ivanka on stage helped to counter that. Hillary and whatever other ugly feminists the DNC has lined up should counter it further.

Trump is gaining traction with blacks and even Hispanics, and now independents. The only groups still strongly opposed to him are hardcore liberals, cuckservatives, and people who want war with Russia. Many of the cuckservatives will come around in time, and will vote for Trump (or at least not for Hillary) even while protesting how reluctant they are. And now that the Bernie hipsters are finding out they got screwed by the DNC, Hillary may lose some of them as well.

If they don't shoot Trump or manufacture some way to suspend the election, it's over.

What's with the inclusion of Johnson and Stein? I don't recall the media regularly including fringe parties in polls for past elections. I'd have assumed it was to artificially lower Trump's numbers and encourage neocons to see third parties as a viable alternative to Trump but it seems to help Trump in the CNN poll.

The way this weekend has gone for the DNC, those hoping for Democrats to put up their own record convention delta should probably start hoping that it isn't a record negative. They had a rough weekend, and no reason to expect it's over.

The Democrats start their convention today so they could be even again at the end of the week.

What part of "biggest bounce since 2000" did you fail to understand? And that's not even taking into account the fact that Hillary is going to have to appear in public for an extended period of time without going into a seizure, shitting herself, or having a barking fit.

I thought you might find this amusing, Vox. The Federalist, which is normally very cuck-ish (whom I still follow for their articles on anything not immigration or Trump), just published this a couple of days ago: http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/22/5-reasons-donald-trump-should-focus-on-the-white-vote/

Hillary only needs two or three percent to even it up. That Hillary won't get a bounce is not unprecedented, but unlikely with the Liberals running the Mainstream Media. The polling still hides Trump support so I'm concerned, but not that much.

What's with the inclusion of Johnson and Stein? I don't recall the media regularly including fringe parties in polls for past elections. I'd have assumed it was to artificially lower Trump's numbers and encourage neocons to see third parties as a viable alternative to Trump but it seems to help Trump in the CNN poll.

Johnson's consistently polled higher than any third party candidate since Perot. Part of that is the historically low favorability for both Clinton and Trump. If he had only been at 3-5%, the odds he swings the election aren't that high. However, he's polling close to 10% in most polls, which is a significant factor.

who confided to me that not only is he voting for Trump, but his entire circle of family and friends is also voting for Trump

I suspect, and can only guess, widespread, unacknowledged support is very common. No one should be surprised if Trump wins in a walk. He was the only Republican who could have, too. Look for Johnson's nine percent to start to go to Trump, and Stein's numbers to swell as Sanders supporters go to her.

Johnny wrote:The media has been overplaying their hand a lot, making it tough to get some anti Trump tractions.

Actually tuned in to the broadcast nightly new last night and it was nauseating how blatant the bias is at this point. They were fawning all over the "great chemistry" Kaine and Hillary have.

The narrative is out in the open now. "dark and negative" was repeated several times about Trump while "positive vision" was also stated several times about Hillary. Anyone with a pulse has to realize that the MSM talking heads are now openly campaigning for Democrats.

Finally, a Republican candidate gets a plurality of Independent voters and its with a guy who isn't a "REAL" Conservative!

Also, a lot of the LP's at Reason have been seriously annoyed at the LP Convention for nominating Johnson/Weld. Finally, an opportunity for the LP to shine, and they picked the most LIBERTINE Libertarian they could find with a soft, intensely liberal ex-Republican for VP. Not to mention Johnson's anti-libertarian stance on the most basic of Libertarian principles - Freedom of Association. It was a prime opportunity to get more conservatives voting Libertarian, and you can see in those numbers that the people more inclined to vote J/W than the 2 parties are Democrats.

If I wasn't on a work computer, I'd try to find that one image showing the increasing desperate irrelevance of Nate Silver even continuing into the future, after Trump has won and become emperor of the galaxy.

Conventional wisdom today amounts to looking back to an election that had a feature you hope happens again, and saying it could happen again. So we're going to hear a lot about 2000, when Bush got an 8-point bounce from the GOP convention, and then Gore came right back with an 8-point bounce of his own from the Democratic convention.

Ryan ATL wrote:Now that I look at Nate Silver's forecast, updated 52 minutes ago, it has Hillary up again? 53.7 to 46.2

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

As I said a few days ago, Nate Silver has no credibility at all right now. He has been wrong about Trump for 7 or 8 consecutive predictions. Him putting Hillary up is pure fantasy to help him deal with, at least temporarily, what he knows is coming.

Timmy3 wrote:Hillary only needs two or three percent to even it up. That Hillary won't get a bounce is not unprecedented, but unlikely with the Liberals running the Mainstream Media. The polling still hides Trump support so I'm concerned, but not that much.It's still early. There's still a big Bradley effect on the polls, and they haven't even had a single debate yet. I'm not worried at all.

Starting to wonder if Hillary is a Trojan pick to get no-name Kaine into the big office? She has some health issue that is being hidden. Would be interesting if that is admitted in one of those 20,000 emails.

I hope I don't need to point out to the regulars here, but this is a CNN poll, and you know they had to be pulling every trick to make Hillary come out ahead.

The simplest method is to hire a firm to do a poll of "voters" or "adults." It costs far less and always trends Democrat.

Then, there are polls of "Registered Voters." Again, still trends slightly Dem, but also costs more than the first, because you have to call more people.

The most reliable poll is "Likely Voters." Voters who have voted in the past two elections. It is more accurate, but costs a lot more. Again, the company has to make a lot more calls to get a representative sample.

While I can understand not paying for "Likely Voter" polls all the time, there's also a reason the major media - with deep pockets - prefers "Registered Voter" polls.

Nate Silver is answering the question of: who would win if the election was held today. That is not the right question. The right question is who will the election on election day.

Lots of serious people ask that question. It is less sexy and also less volatile.

The state by state projections as of today including all most recent polling still indicate a Clinton win with around 312EV. Trump has not altered the road map at this point. Including polling changes that could happen between now and election day, Sec. Clinton is cruising towards victory.

Dirty tricks have started. Obviously everyone with half a brain will understand this is just a nonsense, designed to smear the candidate - but expect this will appear more and more often, if Clinton's chances will nosedive in polls.

Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan are the ones to watch. He wins any one of those and he is going to win the election. The MSM is showing Wisconsin and Michigan as leaning towards Hilary but those states are more in play than they are letting on. I don't think Trump will get Wisconsin because Madison will come out in force to make sure he doesn't win. Michigan and Pennsylvania are very much in play though. Unlike Madison, Detroit, Flint, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are filled with working class democrats rather than elitist democrats. That demographic is either going to stay home or come out for Trump.

Vox - given the massive Bernie protests at the DNC and the wikileaks stuff sinking DWS, plus Hillary's health issues, do you think it at all possible the dems might still try a candidate switch at a later date? National emergency, crisis, that sort of thing? Not to go conspiracy nut here, but there seem to be so many factors in play this time - plus Obama's decided coolness towards Hillary's candidacy.

The Democrat-friendly CBS poll, which measures registered as opposed to likely voters, show it deadlocked 42-42. If you convert that to likely voters, it is about a three- to five-point Trump lead based on CBS's poll.

So DWS is forced to resign as chair-creature of the DNC for favoring one candidate over another (and possible FEC violations for paying journalists for stories), and is now going to work directly for that same candidate's campaign? And the Bernie supporters are still going to vote for her?

Vox - given the massive Bernie protests at the DNC and the wikileaks stuff sinking DWS, plus Hillary's health issues, do you think it at all possible the dems might still try a candidate switch at a later date?

Not a chance in Hell, unless she physically collapses in public or dies. She will NEVER agree to step aside.

Amazing the amount of disconnect between calling for DWS's defenestration for orchestrating the Clinton nomination alongside the adoration of Clinton who benefitted and no doubt gave DWS her marching orders. What will they do with the next Wikileak dump? And how many more can we expect?

That is a GREAT heuristic. It will be interesting to see how well it works as a predictive model, and not simply because it appears to favor Trump at the moment.

The telling thing will be how the next Loudon County poll looks, as Clinton's numbers should go up at least 5 points given her selection of Kaine, to what they were in the June poll. If they don't, it will be obvious that she's in serious trouble.

Gregory IllyichJuly 25, 2016 10:18 AMEven if Trump wins (highly unlikely) the time of the white man is OVER

This will be the last election that white men are relevant at allFuck off.You are the same dick that GUARANTEED that the Munich shooter was white. Your credibility is almost as worthless as your opinions.

VD wrote:Vox - given the massive Bernie protests at the DNC and the wikileaks stuff sinking DWS, plus Hillary's health issues, do you think it at all possible the dems might still try a candidate switch at a later date?

Not a chance in Hell, unless she physically collapses in public or dies. She will NEVER agree to step aside.

She needs to stay away from large groups of Senators on the Ides of July..or perhaps August.

Bobby Farr wrote:What's with the inclusion of Johnson and Stein? I don't recall the media regularly including fringe parties in polls for past elections.

Actually the numbers there are interesting: over 10% total for just these two third parties. -- True, usually there is a drop when the Presidential election comes around, but this cycle has just been so odd/different that they might actually see an increase rather than decrease.

After all, if a voter were to think that Trump and Hillary are both terrible choices they might seriously look into a third party.

Are people so pliable, so easily blown about by the winds of politics, that little things like VP picks are actually swinging the polls, or is that just the random, error-prone nature of polls?

I mean, are Independents actually waking up one morning and saying, "Gee, I sure hope Clinton plays it safe and picks some old boring white guy for her VP - if she does, gee golly, I think I'll vote for her and tell people that's who I'm voting for!"?

VD wrote:Vox - given the massive Bernie protests at the DNC and the wikileaks stuff sinking DWS, plus Hillary's health issues, do you think it at all possible the dems might still try a candidate switch at a later date?

Not a chance in Hell, unless she physically collapses in public or dies. She will NEVER agree to step aside.Even if she were hospitalized for at least a week or left looking and sounding like this would she step aside. It would have to be even more serious if not outright croak to be enough.She sees the Cherry Blossom Throne as her ultimate destiny and even if she's barely breathing by election night will she give up.

Are people so pliable, so easily blown about by the winds of politics, that little things like VP picks are actually swinging the polls

Not necessarily swinging, but candidates almost always get a small bump when they pick a VP. I figure the act itself makes them look a bit presidential, and there will be some people who say, "Whew, at least he didn't pick [that guy I hate]. I guess he's not so bad." There's usually a boost in the VPs home state that adds to it too.

This is a life or death election for both sides, as both are in the position to be completely disarmed and rendered helpless.

The right is pretty straight forward. The left wants to take away all of our weapons and pass draconian laws to make sure that they stay out of everyone's hands.

The left's fear is not as straightforward, but just as real. If we win, we will take away the weaponization of words and ideas. No longer will people be able to be disemployed, economically ruined and jailed for badthink.

These are the deadly weapons of the left, and in civilized society more powerful than any personally carried pistol or rifle. They can not afford to lose control of the narrative. If they do, they are utterly impotent.

That's why I decided to throw my hat in with Trump...even if he lies about the wall and deportation, his campaign has driven a stake into the heart of the power of the narrative.

It's not dead yet, but a Trump presidency and it's ZFG approach will weaken it enough for us to fill it's mouth with the consecrated host, cut off it's head and bury it at the crossroads.

This is actually true. Nate Silver can't help but give his analysis on top of data, and he will often smooth out things he doesn't like in the data, but without a basis in data for why he does what he does.

Actually the numbers there are interesting: over 10% total for just these two third parties. -- True, usually there is a drop when the Presidential election comes around, but this cycle has just been so odd/different that they might actually see an increase rather than decrease.

The conventional wisdom is probably right. Third-party support peaks around the conventions of the major candidates and then peters out as the election draws closer. There is nothing suggesting a stronger than usual third-party support. And since they will be frozen out of the debates, there's really no point.

Sure. And they will for a while, until they start bringing them in line with actual voting intentions in order to maintain some degree of post-election credibility.

I disagree. The polls vary by pollster - national polls are not useful historically. State based polls run by different outfits take different questions, phrased differently, and at different points in time. The aggregate probability is what is important, and based on the median outcomes, this race has barely changed.

Mr. Trump recent bump after his convention was largely from Republicans, virtually all the state based polls reflect this. Additionally, almost every poll that tracks whether or not the voter was a Gov. Romney voter has shown Mr. Trump lagging behind Gov. Romney's prior cycle support.

It is not useful to look at national polls at this stage in the election. We have the two candidates, there's no reason for national polling to be relied upon for predictive purposes.

2/3 of his forecasts are who will win on election day 1/3 is who would win now

Can you post this? I am hopelessly lost on Silver's fancy website. His last cycle report had two separate links, and I thought that the one Vox was referencing was the one dealing with "if the election was held today". If I got that wrong, it's pretty sloppy of me.

I don't respect Silver's work because he is not rigorous about following the data. Probably because he, like all media, has an interest in promoting the horserace as it drives their revenue and pay.

The true test will be when Sec. Clinton starts focusing on down-ballot races, right around late September or early October. At that point, all the doubters here will have a strong-tell that the race is on autopilot.

In my view, the only real remaining variables are act of God against one or other candidate, major national event that changes the course of the country, or a generationally unusual debate performance by one or both candidates. To my mind that would be something like Mr. Trump making Sec. Clinton cry in frustration or fear during a debate.

Actually the numbers there are interesting: over 10% total for just these two third parties. -- True, usually there is a drop when the Presidential election comes around, but this cycle has just been so odd/different that they might actually see an increase rather than decrease.

As the communists bump up Stein's numbers after the email revelations, look for Luegenpresse to ignore the third party candidates. All they wanted was to illustrate Johnson's numbers, which will decline and go to Trump.

The state by state projections as of today including all most recent polling still indicate a Clinton win with around 312EV.

Most of the swing states have not been polled in weeks and some before the FBI fiasco. RCP has it 164/204, which represents a drop for Clinton. The next round of state polling will be devastating for Clinton and the communists will be in full panic mode. She essentially can't win now, and the Democrats are about to split in half.

Trump is surging and Hillary dropping on BetFair, though it's going to take a while for the small bettors to gnaw their way through the 100,000-pound firewall that some big fish laid to keep Trump's odds below 2/1.

That's why I decided to throw my hat in with Trump...even if he lies about the wall and deportation, his campaign has driven a stake into the heart of the power of the narrative.

Exactly. Whatever Trump does from here, the blitzkrieg on the right flank of the Overton Window he has enabled is a greater accomplishment than either the GOP or the libertarian movement have managed in the last thirty years.

Until the shooting starts in the european west, shame is the deadliest weapon. If we are no longer ashamed to say what we think, if we see people we admire saying it and not suffering social shaming or apologizing, they lose their nuclear deterrent.

that's the one thing I am worried about. Between the legions of the undead voting in Louisiana, Georgia and Southern California (up here in Northern California, we don't need dead voters...we just throw ballet boxes into the bay) and out and out voter intimidation we are going to see the election results disputed and challenged up to and past the inauguration.

This is what I am interested in hearing about. How do we fight the fix? Not that I am despairing, but I do want to be prepared to do my part in enforcing the will of the voters.

They cannot afford to have Hillary V1 debate Trump. The drugs she will be on will make her look like a dribbling moron.

The Other, just remember that Romney's high water mark was just after the Clint Eastwood empty chair bit. That was August 30 (the convention last time was a whole 5 weeks later).

I just want to point out how the bad the Republicans are at this. To protect Gov. Romney and thwart Rep. Ron Paul, the RNC basically ruined their convention process last time around. All so that precious delegates didn't have to listen to any criticism of neoconservative foreign policy or neo-liberal monetary policy.

Then, thinking that the best way to win the White House this time around would be a traditional campaign media war, where consultants and TV stations get rich, they moved their convention a month earlier, which allows the campaign to switch to general election funds early. At the same time, they front-loaded the primary process to states that are not traditional GOP states, and undid the past weighting for states that have closed Republican primaries, meaning that this time around non-GOP states and states with open primaries had a disproportionate sway. Consider that Mr. Trump essentially sealed his nomination with winning New York, a state that hasn't voted for a Republican in the White House since Reagan's second term in 1984.

The RNC completely failed to anticipate a candidate who can generate unlimited free media coverage, and could not possibly for see a candidate who wasn't a hardcore neoconservative. They gave up their best advantage, which is the attention and interest voters have in a competitive, spirited, and robust primary process. If the RNC had of been tactically adept, they would have anticipated a Sec. Clinton nomination, and moved their primary process to start shortly before the DNC convention, and end in mid-October. This would have put 16-Republicans on the air, daily, state by state, all slamming Sec. Clinton, all drowning out the noise.

Instead, they moved their convention to mid-July. So that the general election was longer. Something that has literally never helped a candidate win.

As long as we've reached the Muslim threshold where we now have a major attack monthly, a minispree weekly, and a death by Mohammad daily... my only question at this point is if Trump will carry 400 EV or not.

I say not, because doing so would require NY and NJ or CA. On the other hand, I wouldn't bet the farm against it

I was at a fundraiser at Wendy's for a kid and they have a teevee with the sound on. The "Jill Stein" and "Gary Johnson" names came up and no one knew that they were real people. We all assumed they were totally generic names; some new way of sussing out true undecideds or something stupid like that.

While I am hoping that the Trumpster will win big, and I have not been this happy to vote for a candidate since Reagan in 1984, I too have some fears:

1) Ballot stuffing. The Dems really have no honor they will do it if they can. In Philly last time they ejected republican poll watchers (illegal) and those districts put in 99% of registered voters with 100% voting for Obama. They got away with it, no one went to ail and they counted the votes.

2) The young dummies: I work with a few of the younger Gen X and the older millennials and they are really rather stupid. Sorry to be so rude but it is true. One gun guy at work who has AR15s, does not like trump and is planning to vote third party. He asked me do I think the congress would hold the line with gun control and seemed surprised if the republicans were repudiated at the pools a third time they would fold on the issue. What a nit wit. There are a lot of young fools like this, something about social media has removed their ability to think outside of their age group preferences.

3) Complete complicity by the press. With the exception of Fox the press is all in against Trump. None of the wishy-washy folks in the middle are listing to FOX. I am afraid the constant flow of BS on trump will work.

4) Back to the young dummies. In the Reagan 1980/84 the young overwhelming went for Reagan. That is the hated baby boomer generation I would mention...... In contrast today the young millennials favor socialism by around 52 to 58 %, want free college, their college debt paid off, etc. This is markedly different from the 1980/84 period, you have not only the minorities anti Trump but the young generation.

That said even with these fears I suspect the republicans could not have run a better candidate. Trump truly is a man for the times, I have not been this happy to vote for a presidential candidate since 1984. This is a real test, if Trump cannot win the country is doomed to becoming like Venezuela or a low level 4G civil war.

Alexander wrote:As long as we've reached the Muslim threshold where we now have a major attack monthly, a minispree weekly, and a death by Mohammad daily... my only question at this point is if Trump will carry 400 EV or not.

I say not, because doing so would require NY and NJ or CA. On the other hand, I wouldn't bet the farm against it

I know that many people have an aversion to anything Joel Richardson might have to say on the matter, but in this video he summarizes many of the things I've been saying here and elsewhere for a while. It might not be too informative for the interested who have been paying attention, but for those struggling to see the big picture it's well worth a listen.

The safe bet is that they will, until proven otherwise. There's a ton of inertia in politics, and most people do vote by party no matter what. That's why 59% of the vote, like Reagan got in 1984, is considered a massive landslide.

The Berntards are still liberals, and despite the conservatives yelling that Trump is a New York liberal, the Berntards can sense that he's not one of them. They see in him the kind of guy who would have them beaten up and kicked off his golf course for not dressing well enough.

They might stay home, though, and not invest their youthful enthusiasm into campaigning for Hillary, which is almost as good as switching.

Please....how many times have we heard the "Trump high water mark" angle only to be wrong. Ignoring how terrible a candidate Hillary is, or the DNC scandals, or the record number of working class democrats indicating they won't vote for Hillary then at the very least you should have learned that it's a bad idea to bet against Trump given his track record to date.

Please....how many times have we heard the "Trump high water mark" angle only to be wrong. Ignoring how terrible a candidate Hillary is, or the DNC scandals, or the record number of working class democrats indicating they won't vote for Hillary then at the very least you should have learned that it's a bad idea to bet against Trump given his track record to date.

If you listen to people who are wrong, big surprise, they turn out to be wrong. Trump led in 75% of early primary polls, and over 90% in the entire primary season. Anyone who followed the data was not surprised by his victory in the nomination process. If anything, the people who followed the data were a little bit let down at his slight underperformance according to the polls.

Except Trump isn't a typical candidate and he has beaten the smart money every single time to date. The typical rationale doesn't apply to him. However it does to Hillary, and too date the more people see of her the less they like her.

She is in an impossible position. She either lets Trump have his way rhetorically with her, which will cause her poll numbers to drop, or she has to come out and defend herself, which will cause her poll numbers to drop.

This isn't so much an election as it is a referendum on Trump. Hillary is just the meat sack opposite of him.

So what do they call it if the "bounce" the Dems get from the convention is negative. DWS booed off the stage, the big DNC email scandal, maybe a small seizure on stage the last night (one too big to just laugh off), etc.... If the Dem drop in popularity, do they get an "un-bounce", a "crater", a "reality check", or what?

Of course, to the media's D-centric reporters on the spot, "the train-wreck is fine."

Trump is going to win period. At this point he doesn't have to campaign so much as let he democrats eat themselves. Reddit is full of posters who were Bernie supporters who are saying "fuck the DNC I'm voting Trump". Those who aren't are indicating Stein or Johnson.

Mark my words, Trump will have the highest margin for the under 30 vote for the GOP since Ronald Reagan.

"Yes, Gov. Romney ended up with 93% of the Republican vote. At present, Mr. Trump, is in the low 80's"

But it's not 80% Trump, 20% Clinton. Only 5-6% of Republicans respond Clinton. The other 15% respond "I won't vote", Gary Johnson, or undecided. Given the typical waning of third parties as the election nears, Trump will get above 90% of Republicans.

More significant is that in the latest CBS poll 11% of Democrats respond Trump. Trump is getting the cross-over, not Hillary.

@112 3) Complete complicity by the press. With the exception of Fox the press is all in against Trump. None of the wishy-washy folks in the middle are listing to FOX. I am afraid the constant flow of BS on trump will work.

I was watching CNN during the latest Muslim massacre (I guess that was Friday? I can't keep them all straight.) and I was surprised how balanced they were towards Trump (compared to my expectations).

I think at some level many of them realize that Trump is a ratings machine and 8 years of boring Hillary could completely bankrupt their businesses. Plus Trump just seems like a lot more fun.

Not to take away from the fact that they still have all of their DNC-approved and financed shows and scripts playing on a regular basis. But when things go off-script (breaking news, etc.) it feels like a different narrative.

What they won't do is work for her. They won't get out the vote. They won't shame/invigorate their friends into voting. Michael Moore made that point and I think that's a point worth considering. It goes back to "excitement" of the electorate.

@125 - but the apathetic voters will come out. 80% of something 30% larger is better than 95% of a tiny turnout.Look at the primaries - How many turned out to vote for Trump total v.s. Romney. The valley of dry bones has come to life again and are an energized army.The elite and the party machinery's votes will numerically shrink, and with the monster vote it will shrink to be proportionately as irrelevant as the transgender lobby.

Hillary also just Bern-ed her base. It is those who show up on election day for the Dorian Gray Lady, or for the TRiUMPh.

In the Moore's 5 Reasons post I commented that the difference is Anger - TheConservativeTreehouse calls it "Cold Anger". Anger over trade and jobs, muslims, illegals, and crime, bailouts and no jail time for the elite.Anger is a powerful emotion.

The Berned-outs are Angry too - and with a few carefully targeted ads, they WON'T vote for Hillary. TPP, Wall Street, Corruption, there are enough issues that Trump does better on than Hillary and can either demoralize them into apathy or get them to switch.

That signals the black vote and the voter fraud machinery of Philly were either muted or overwhelmed.

Many may not realize, but much of Pennsylvania is very "red." The vote machine is cranked up during the presidential elections, because so much is on the line. However, the Assembly and Senate, as well as many statewide offices, go Republican.

@116 Romney told blue collar whites to go XXXX themselves. Massive numbers of us stayed at home, especially in the Rust Belt. Why would we get out to vote for White Obama? Trump is bringing us back to the ballot box.

Trump hasn't dog whistled a bit about blacks that could be taken as the old GOP standby, there is that. I've always said the conservatives could attract the conservative tenth of blacks, Trump could take 20% is my WAG.

Honestly, Syria is such a mess, I wouldn't get involved on either side. If Russia wants to wade into that swamp, go ahead. I'd pivot my focus on to Iraq, SA, Iran while their resources are committed to another quagmire.

Anchorman wrote:He pulled away early and she couldn't put away Bernie until the bitter end.

Not even that. If you take away the "superdelegates" that are already supposedly committed to her, she's still not past the threshold. That's why this week isn't a done deal yet. DWS stepping over to her campaign is only the beginning. When they start counting delegates tomorrow, that's where the real story is going to be.

This GOP convention was the first one in decades that actually fit the definition of an American political convention, I.E. a congress of free Americans that convened.

People who disagreed with each other actually got together and disagreed. They spoke their minds to each other, (pretty loudly in fact). There was discussion and debate within their own ranks on what it means to be a Republican.

Then moved they forward from that. Yes the #nevertrumps are still whining in the background but at this point no one cares because we let them have their say in public. They made their case and it was a bad one.

The Democratic convention on the other hand promises to be nothing but a hivemind lick fest of...Barack Obama!

Alas poor Crooked Granny Cankles. Always the Bridesmaid but never the bride...even at her own wedding.

Ok, so this is how 538 works. You have the "Now" model which shows Trump up:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#now

You have the "Polls-only" model:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

and the "Polls Plus our Hack opinions" model:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#plus

The "Polls-only" model uses Bayesian statistics. Basically each poll has a weight assigned to it. The weight scales with how much that poll agrees with other polls. Probably the weighting also depends how old the poll is, and their grade for the pollster (how accurate the pollster has been in the past).

This means that 538 is essentially time dampened. If more polls come out that agree with the recent polls (like the CNN poll) then those polls will be up-weighted and the "Poll-only" model will start to converge towards the "Now" model. On the other hand, if it is a convention bounce, the CNN poll will continue to be weakly weighted in the model. The "Poll-only" model is simply more stable with time.

Where they go from wonks to hacks is with the Poll-plus model. It's going to be wrong because Trump is the populist and Hilary is the establishment, and no historical information is going to make that model more accurate.

@100 Napoleon 12pdr With any luck, the Sanders supporters will be chanting "Lock Her Up!" in fine voice the next four days.---http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/25/lock-her-up-democratic-convention-bernie-sanders-philadelphia/

DH....seriously you cannot compare the scheloric GOP of 2012 to today; it has been completely upended. The old guard has been tossed out.

I recommend going back to the un-skewing posts 4 years ago, and re-reading the same bravado. It's all different this time, all the polls are rigged, there are too many Democrats in the samples! Obamacare, Obama, etc.

GWBush got the most Republican votes in US history. The absolute high-water mark. Mr. Trump is not polling as well. For the Bush win, he had strong Republican turnout, substantial independent turnover, and the high-water mark for Latino support for any Republican, ever.

Yes, Gov. Romney lost 2 million votes from the high-water mark that GW Bush set, but Pres. Obama won by over 5 million votes, and no combination of the 2 million votes that Gov. Romney lost changes that.

They were in the Romney campaign. There the state polls showed Romney within the margin of error in key states right up to the election. The national polls showed Obama with a clear advantage.

JD, this is not even close to true.

The same site I prefer for data and vote counting has been doing it since 2004. They are better than Nate Silver because there is no hackplus model (great term by another person in this thread). First, here is the last calculation based on the day before election day polling, using their state-based prediction model:

ELECTORAL PREDICTION (median): Obama 305 EV, Romney 233 EV, Popular Vote Meta-Margin Obama +2.76%. This median is almost guaranteed to be off, since 305 EV is not a common combination. It is the midpoint of all possibilities, and reflects the overall shape of the distribution. The nominal 1-sigma band is Obama [293, 332] EV. TWO-CANDIDATE POPULAR VOTE SHARE: Obama 51.1%, Romney 48.9%.

The actual result was 332/206, with 51.1%/47.2%, very close to perfectly on the money. The result was on the high-top-end of the Obama 1 deviation band.

Now, let's look at the same point in the 2012 election, using the same predictive model, at Mitt Romney's polling high point. Using state based models, the same median predictor was forecasting Obama 300 Romney 238.. on August 25th, 2012.

If what you say is reflective of reality then Trump should not have broken Romney's record

Mr. Trump broke the record because the contest ran much longer than usual. This is like giving Sen. McCain props for having record turnout.. against him and for then Sen. Obama.

Mr. Trump got the most votes because in past years, the primary has been over after the 3rd or 4th primary. In Romney's 2012 primary season, he was declared the presumptive nominee by April 25th by the RNC. He never was seriously challenged after April 3rd.

Mr. Trump didn't lock down his nomination until almost the very end of the primary season. Mr. Trump, to his credit, campaigned in far more states than any modern primary candidate, and he did so with a very small team and a comparatively small budget (i.e. Jeb!).

Sorry for the barrage. I think I've staked out my position pretty firmly. Time will tell very soon if I am all wet, or if data-scientists who have been very accurate in the 2004, 2008, and 2012 elections will continue to be very accurate.

From memory you said you didn't have an explanation and that we would have to see which one was correct. We left it at that, and it turned out to be the national polls.

Now, it's possible I'm misremembering (it's been known to happen), but I don't think so. It's also possible you weren't using this particular polling source at the time and were (like me) relying on the more common published polls.

VFM #6306 wrote:The "Jill Stein" and "Gary Johnson" names came up and no one knew that they were real people. We all assumed they were totally generic names; some new way of sussing out true undecideds or something stupid like that.

Ha! That's funny. I half expect Trump to challenge them to a debate, so that more of the people that would never vote for him will have a non-Hillary alternative that they've seen on national prime-time TV. And then if Hillary's shamed into showing up since Gary and Jill will be there, bonus!

Oh, and dh, my position then was simple. It was that the state figures could be trusted more than the national figures because the national ones always overstated the democrat support by almost 5%, and that this had been true my entire voting lifetime. You claimed that wasn't true, but since I lived through those elections. I know what I saw, and the Obama/Romney election was the first time I've ever seen the national polls reflect the reality of the election.

Now, it's possible I'm misremembering (it's been known to happen), but I don't think so. It's also possible you weren't using this particular polling source at the time and were (like me) relying on the more common published polls.

This is me from 2012:

If you are a stats geek, highly recommend Prof. Sam Wang from Princeton. His methods are 100% transparent, with source code (http://election.princeton.edu/for-fellow-geeks/) and statistically speaking he is not a lightweight like Nate Silver. Very solid. I would defy you to find a flaw in his methodology, model, or implementation.

In the same thread, this was you:

My rule of thumb is that the polls overstate the democrats position by 5%. That seems to have worked fairly well over the years.

I suspect it's even worse this time, since the press is so overtly in the tank for Obama.

It's the same pseudo-science and vagueness. "The polls" are wrong, "the polls", from 20+ different sources, are all rigged the same wrong way, and all show the same trends.

In my defense, I completely failed to account for a campaign strategist WHO NEITHER KNEW NOR UNDERSTOOD THE CURRENT RULES.

I think this is a really good point, which is, it's fun to make predictions, and to game out what could happen. There are events that could change the course of the election, and make the data-based predictions wrong. Those are possible. And if you look at the monte-carlo data out there, based on the state-based polls, those edge cases are accounted for.

In 2008, VD very early predicted Clinton to win the primary. At that time, then-Sen. Obama was the token resistance, and he went out and put together the best primary operation in 40 years. He harnessed a great messaging operation and a strong money operation, and cut then-Sen. Clinton off at the knees with party activists and minorities.

Sec. Clinton's entire campaign team were lightweights, politically chosen, who never bothered to plan more than 2 weeks into the process, because like Gov. Bush in 2016, they expected a coronation.

I don't think it's wrong to emotionally and based on large trends to make political predictions. That's a form of fun.

I do not take lightly to people basically stringing together weird conspiracies about the accuracy or modeling of polling or polls or predictive models without understanding what they are saying and claiming. Half the fun of following politics is to imagine and play with what could happen, and narrow that down over time to what will happen. The data centric model strips all that away. It's not unlike the division between rhetoric and dialectic. Rhetoric is fun.

The trend is pretty brutal, and the skew towards Republicans distrusting the media compared to Democrats is huge, but this is the first poll Democrats have ever gone into negative trust for the media. Distrust of the establishment really should favour Trump over Romney. Obama in 2012 still had some of his "change" shininess and Romney is everything-establishment-man. Bayesian models are better at dealing with "long-tail" events but they aren't perfect and they're still victims to the assumptions built into them.

I would say Trump's main weakness right now is if he can get actually get out the poor people who favour him so much to actually vote.

James Dixon.. if that's the case it's not how I remembered it. I've only been following elections closely since 2004. I cant' speak to the large national polling failures in the 80's, for example.

The science of polling is pretty good. A honest pollster using best practices can with high-confidence predict the outcome of an election before it happens, to the extent that voters have decided. That was my point in 2012, and it's my point now. State-based polls, used in aggregate, are very accurate.

@158. "Mr. Trump broke the record because the contest ran much longer than usual. This is like giving Sen. McCain props for having record turnout.. against him and for then Sen. Obama.

Mr. Trump got the most votes because in past years, the primary has been over after the 3rd or 4th primary. In Romney's 2012 primary season, he was declared the presumptive nominee by April 25th by the RNC. He never was seriously challenged after April 3rd."

Like Romney, Trump was never seriously challenged after the early-April Wisconsin primary. In the lead up to the northeastern states voting in late April, the polls showed Trump dominating. It was apparent that Trump was going to win to everyone but the entrenched mainstream pundits who refused to acknowledge his momentum for what it was.

Trump was declared the presumptive nominee the first week of May. The only difference between the 2012 and 2016 races based on timing was about 2 weeks.

Consider that the 2012 and 2016 Pennsylvania Republican primaries were held at the same point in the primary season: at the end of April, when the front-running candidate was on the verge of clinching.

Mr. Trump faced determined opposition through May 3rd after Indiannia. Gov. Romney was the clear favorite 1 week after the start of primary season, but didn't lock it down right off because of an unfavorable calendar.

As I said, I think Mr. Trump ran the strongest GOP primary in at least 40 years (since the modern primary season began). Other Pres. Obama, one of the strongest.

However, it's really clear that Mr. Trump had high turnout and vote totals because he had to campaign an extra-month over past candidates. This primary season was electric for the GOP because of the passion and strong feelings on all sides. This is by the way very good for the party.

Right, in PA in 2016, there were something like 1.5 million GOP votes. IN 2012, Romney and his competitors only raised 810k votes.

This is precisely what I meant. Trump inspired high voter turnout. On on the one hand, he received more votes than were cast in 2012, on the other hand, he received more votes "against him" (for other people) than were cast total in 2012.

I.e. he was exciting but polarizing. This is born out by the convention and the final votes.

Every state had higher turnout across the board, and Trump competed in an extra month plus of races actively before the race went onto autopilot.

Romney eventually got to a much higher vote percentage (per state), but never drew the type of electricity that TRump did (both for and against).

JAG wrote:If what you say is reflective of reality then Trump should not have broken Romney's record.

It's a NeverTrump tell "But Trump is less popular with Republican Voters!!!!!!! He can't win without Republican voters!!!!!!"

In point of fact, virtually every election is decided by non-GOP voters. If you alienate 20% of the GOP but pick up 10% of Dems and 60% of undecideds, you're straight even. If you can boost either one of those, you win in a landslide.

BGKB wrote:OT: Can the RNC sue over sleazy fiction of Trump and his daughter?[awful crap I'm not going to link]

Whoever wrote that probably thought it would alienate women voters and improve Hillary's chances.

They were wrong.

A large number of women vote the straight tingles ticket. And women have a lot less problem with father-daughter incest than they claim.And, anything that sexualizes the election works resoundingly to Trump's favor. Not even Huma, whose income depends on it wants to bed her.

In reality, the March phase of the 2012 primary was competitive. Romney actually lost the popular vote in the following March 2012 primaries: GA, ND, OK, TN, KS, AL, and MS. He only won the Wisconsin primary in early April by 5 percentage points.

I doubt that any poll being shown by the Legacy Media after this point will be "real" at all. After all, reality is in conflict with the Narrative, and the Narrative needs to be maintained at all costs.

Right, the southern states are the "unfavorable calendar" I mentioned. Romney's calendar was front-loaded against him, the Southern states that are wedged in between larger delegate states hurt his ability to really wrap it after the first week or two. But the cake was already baked. Even though a clown car parade of other contenders see-sawed through March, Romney was solid once states more favorable to his base hit the calendar, and shortly after WI it was all over. He maintained competitiveness through his worst states and did well in his strong states.

I think Trump is careful about how much of his own money he spends until now to avoid the appearance or charges that he's just a billionaire trying to buy the election

It's more pragmatic. Why buy when you can get for free?

The Trump campaign is all the evidence in the world that the "money out of politics" crowd are idiots. All of the money in the world didn't help Jeb! (please clap), or any other clown-car competitor. Trump was wildly outspent.

Talking with a colleague this evening, an English born son of Sri Lankan parents, and he said he thinks Trump will win for much the same reason Brexit won; he offers a real hope of something different and positive to voters thoroughly fed up with the more of the same Punch n Judy show of the two party system.

Whereas the remain crowd only offered "reasons" to fear leaving, i.e. they were uniformly negative while promoting the status quo. But people know their line that their way is the only possible way is bullshit, and are prepared to tolerate some costs just to get something different from decades of shit and betrayal.

Especially if it has the added benefit of sticking two fingers up the establishment.

praetorian wrote:Pretty funny that "not provoking them and occasionally working with them when our interests align" counts as "Russian influence".

You can't have internationalism without nationalism.

To comprehend the globalists' perspective on Russia, you have to take into account how butthurt they are that they don't control it, since they feel entitled. Every exercise of its national interest is an existential threat to their paradigm (which they then get all hysterical about, due to emotionally conflating their worldview with the world).

I must say your posts were very enlightening and give pause to those who see Trump sweeping it. I certainly do not know the answer.

That said her are some facts that go against the current idea that Hillary is favored:

since 1946 the presidential elections have looked like this

Truman (45, 48) 2 terms democrats

Eisenhower (52, 56) 2 terms Republican

Kennedy, Johnson (60, 64)(2 terms democrat)

Nixon, Nixon-Ford (68, 72) 2 terms republican

Carter (76) 1 term democrat

Reagan, Reagan, Bush ( 80, 84, 88) 3 term republican

Clinton (92, 96) 2 term democrat

Bush (00, 04) 2 term republican

Obama (08,12) 2 terms democrat

Notice a pattern here? The only time it was broken was when we had a very bad economy combined with a unsuccessful conflict (Carter 76) and when we had a very good economy with better results for 8 straight years (Reagan Bush1)

I would suggest we now have a bad economy, with a bad security situation, with near Watergate levels of corruption.

If you look at charisma, consider the following:

Nixon vs. Kennedy

Carter vs. Ford

Carter vs. Reagan

Bush vs. Dukakis

Clinton vs. Bush

Clinton vs. Dole

Obama vs. MaCain

In all of these cases the guy with more charisma won. In the other cases you really could not say which had more charisma, they were kind of equal. I cannot think of a election where the less charisma candidate won at least since the television era. In this case I think most would agree Trump has it over Hillary.

By a long term comparisons Hillary is toast. It may not show up in the polls quite yet, but it will be September if the above analysis is correct.

> It's the same pseudo-science and vagueness. "The polls" are wrong, "the polls", from 20+ different sources, are all rigged the same wrong way, and all show the same trends.

No. The national polls, from about, let's see, I'd say 3-6 sources over the 40+ years I've been watching elections, were wrong. There weren't 20+ sources available in those days, or if there were there was no Internet to find them. The sources available then were the ones quoted on the major news networks and local papers. And yes, they were wrong. By about 5%. Routinely.

> I cant' speak to the large national polling failures in the 80's, for example.

I can. Even in the 90's the pattern held. It was only with Bush Jr. that it started to break down. His figures were still off, but not by the 5% I could routinely count on. I believe the national polls still understated McCain's support slightly, though again not by 5%. So if that's the history you're talking about, it's no wonder we disagree. You're talking a minor subset of my experience. I'm talking all the way back to Nixon.

Even at that we agree that it's the state polls that matter. And I repeat, to my memory they showed Romney within the margin of error in the swing states (again, memory, I'm not going to take time to check). Most showed Obama with a slight lead but less than the margin of error, but a few outliers showed Romney in the lead. Romney lost all of them. The vote totals almost exactly matched the national figures.

So our conclusions diverge. You trust the state polls. After the last election I don't trust any of them. And Trump/Clinton both have such high negatives and are such polarizing candidates that I honestly have no idea who is going to win. I'm hoping for Trump, obviously, as I consider Hillary to be evil incarnate. The things I do know: The R base is about 30% and Trump will get close to 90% of it. The D base is about 35% and Hillary will get at least 85% of it. A good 35 of the states are a lock for one candidate or the other. It will come down to turnout, the independent vote, how many vote third party, how many of each part cross party lines, and voter fraud in a dozen or fewer states. I think Trump can win. I have no idea if he will or not.

Nothing to disagree with here. I have felt from the beginning that Mr. Trump is legitimate candidate.

I really don't think this race has anything at all to do with the candidates. The United States is well past a country that elects national candidates anymore. The electorate has been divided, progressively over time, into factions based on identity, like most other multi-ethnic countries.

In 2012 I wrote that within 8-12 years - now 4-8 years - that Texas will flip, and it will be all over the White minority party (or parties). Nothing has changed.

I haven't seen it posted here, and may have missed it. But apparently Hitlery has really stepped in it, by hiring Wasserman-Shultz after he resigned over the e-mail scandal. Here's a link to a Bernie supporter who is livid, and I strongly suspect she isn't the only one feeling this way.

I think people underestimate how much it would hurt a party to change candidates late in the game. Also, SJWs, especially women, have clearly gained ascendency in the Democratic Party, and they are by God going to run a woman this time, no matter how bad her chances are. It's her turn! Just like the SJWs in SF/F, these are not people who will let facts on the ground get in the way.

That's one of the things that's changed: a decade or more ago, the Dems still had private sector union leaders and other relatively rational leftists involved in running things. Those look like sober statesmen compared to the freaks they have running things now.

So even if Hillary dies and they're forced to replace her, I'm betting they'll go with a woman. They won't go with a straight white man. They were barely willing to do that for VP. But if they did go with Biden, that would further piss off the Berntards, which wouldn't help them either.

Short answer: Trump would still beat Biden, but that's not going to happen.